Also note that the effects, thought as being caused by the ZPE, may be regarded as a rather
accurate implementation of the **Creationist Wish List**. Does it mean that they are simply
a product of *wishful thinking*? Not necessarily so, as has been demonstrated:

- Decreasing redshift
- Decreasing lightspeed
- Decreasing radioactive decay speed
- Increasing radiation energy
- Increasing particle mass
- Decreasing gigantism

However, according to our own highly speculative theory, the Zero Point Energy is **not**
causing any of the phenomena, such as those depicted in the above diagram. It rather should
be the other way around. According to us, **cause and effect have been mixed up** with
*Cosmology and the ZPE*.
Increasing particle mass should be on top as the cause; increasing strength of ZPE - if it
real - should be at the bottom as one of the effects. And the Planck constant is assumed to be
an absolute constant, as there is only *one* hypothesis instead of several ones, namely
the increasing particle mass. It is the minimalist position, as it is called by Setterfield.
The resemblance with the original diagram by Rinus Kiel is striking, while I have done not
any attempt to impose wishful thinking upon my little theory (at least I hope so).

As has been said, essentially the only difference between the two diagrams is the exchange of
cause and effect: (Increasing strength of ZPF) $\color{red}{\Longleftrightarrow}$
(Increasing particle mass).

This could be marked in some circles as a quite satisfactory achievement. It must be noticed,
however, that I've been talking about a ZP**E** and not about a ZP**F** all the time.
The reason for this being that the existence of a real Zero Point Energy has been verified
experimentally for fields with a material substrate; for example vibrating molecules in a
solid do indeed have a real ZPE. But the existence of a Zero Point Energy for the vacuum
- Zero Point Field - IMHO remains questionable.
Hence the question marks ($\color{red}{??}$) in the bottom diagram.

It should be emphasized that Setterfield's mantra "**Letting Data Lead to Theory**" is
not in any way invalidated by turning (t)his theory - in fact: any theory - upside down.
In particular it has no effect, at all, on the data themselves!
So what's the big deal? If one has to choose between a little, minimalist theory that is at
least mathematically correct? Or an overly complicated, multi-layer, unmanageable theory
that has turned out to be *not even
wrong*?

(+) Rinus may be regarded as my cosmic twin brother. Despite our differences, we had many things in common.